Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has a unique ability to find the one thing you care about, speak to it, get you to rabidly follow him, all the while ensuring that you don't notice the full panoply of pernicious and quixotic positions he holds. His brand of what I term "Constitutional nihilism," combined with his ethical hypocrisy and Libertarian leanings should be enough to disqualify him from becoming county dog catcher, let alone President of the United States.
And yet, as we saw in New Hampshire, there are those who would boil out of the woodwork to worship at the feet of the man, as if he were some political messiah, sent to them by providence to restore the balance in government. They are attracted by the relatively healthy ideas he has, legalizing marijuana, stopping wars, etc., but most are none too familiar with his remaining cavalcade of rather troubling ideas, banning abortion, eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency, returning to the Gold Standard, etc. Perhaps, as is said, ignorance is truly bliss? To find a candidate who seems -- on the surface -- to care about the one thing you truly care about is enough for these people?
His obstreperous supporters aside, the litany of political claptrap that is the building material of the Ron Paul campaign platform, while snaring those who choose to focus on minuscule portions that warm their soul, is a wholly unsupportable and rickety mass with a limited lifespan outside the Republican/Libertarian womb. While he may have youthful enthusiasm on his side, it is aged guile that will be the undoing of his campaign. The 'Baby Boom' generation, now starting to reach the time of Social Security and Medicare, will not support someone whose intent is to dismantle those entitlements, no matter how much marijuana they would be allowed to smoke. The Military Industrial Complex will certainly not be in hurry to promote someone seeking to mitigate their profit flow through the cessation of American combat and non-combat involvement overseas. Decent, rational Americans, will not hand the reins of power to someone who talks about reducing the influence of Federal government, even as he is using it to force women into gestational slavery and removing the programs that have attempted to create equity in an inequitable, WASP-centered society.
In short, if you wish to be the leader of a Republic, stating that your avowed goal is to strip that Republic of everything that makes it worthwhile, and will do it in the name of the document -- the Constitution of the United States -- that is actually antithetical to your stated intentions, while reducing nearly seventy-five percent of its citizenry to second class status (if they are not, in fact, already there), invalidates your claim that you would make the best candidate for President. A Republic cannot -- and should not -- be run by a man whose stated intention is to tear it down. No patriot, living or dead, would stand for it.